'Partition Of Property Can Be Only Among Those Having A Share Or Interest': Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Safikul Islam Khan v. Dhulo Sk. & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 440
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed an appeal seeking partition of a property, holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish any right, title or interest in the disputed plot and that other persons claiming interests in the property had not been impleaded in the suit.
A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur and Justice Atarup Banerjee upheld the trial court's decision dismissing the partition suit. The Bench observed that a suit for partition required the plaintiff to establish the source of his right, title and interest in the property and ensure that all co-owners or other interested persons were made parties to the proceedings.
Calcutta High Court Grants Bail To French Refugee Arrested While Crossing India-Bangladesh Border
Case: Rocky Francis D'costa v. State, CRM (M) No. 2447 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 441
The Calcutta High Court has granted bail to a French passport holder with refugee status in France, who was arrested while allegedly crossing the India-Bangladesh border without valid documents, observing that there was no need for further custodial interrogation after the investigation had concluded and a chargesheet had been filed.
Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) granted bail to Rocky Francis D'costa, who was booked under Section 21 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, and Section 12 of the Passports Act, 1967. The Court took note of his French refugee status, valid passport, absence of criminal antecedents and his mother's ongoing medical treatment in India.
Case: Sk. Safikul Islam -Versus- Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 442
The Calcutta High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a journalist running the YouTube news channel Arambagh TV over a broadcast concerning alleged irregularities at Kolkata's RG Kar Medical College and Hospital, holding that the allegations in the complaint did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences invoked against him.
Justice Anuj Singh held that even if the allegations in the complaint were accepted in their entirety, no offence was made out under Sections 340(2), 353(1)(b), 353(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Court also found that the criminal proceedings appeared to have been initiated with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance against the journalist.
Case Title: Bharatiya Railway P. Shramik Union (E. Rly) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.; Bharatiya Railway P. Shramik Union (E. Rly) & Anr. v. Sealdah Railway Athletic Club & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 443
The Calcutta High Court has allowed an employees' union of the Eastern Railway's Sealdah Division to organise Durga Puja on a demarcated portion of a railway ground, alongside the Sealdah Railway Athletic Club, observing that Puja is meant for the public and that organisers merely execute the celebrations.
A Division Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar and Justice Arjun Ray Mukherjee set aside a Single Judge's order dated October 6, 2026, which had permitted the Sealdah Railway Athletic Club to hold Durga Puja on the railway ground. The Bench held that permission granted to the Bharatiya Railway P. Shramik Union had been withdrawn without providing it an opportunity of hearing or recording adequate reasons.
Case: In re: Sabyasachi Datta
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 444
The Calcutta High Court has granted interim bail to former Bidhannagar Mayor and former Trinamool Congress MLA Sabyasachi Dutta in a corruption case, noting that the complaint alleging a demand for money in 2018 was lodged only in 2026 without any explanation for the inordinate delay.
Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) granted Dutta interim bail until November 30, 2026, subject to conditions including surrender of his passport, restrictions on leaving West Bengal without the trial court's permission and directions against tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.
Case: Uddhab Singh Babu & Anr. v. Hemanta Kumar Singh Manki
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 445
The Calcutta High Court criticised a district judge for allegedly ignoring statutory provisions while deciding a succession dispute, observing that the judge appeared more interested in writing social history than delivering a judgment in accordance with the law.
Case: Amalaksha Jana & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 446
The Calcutta High Court held that the State cannot create an alternative eligibility route for appointing a college principal on the basis of eminence as a professional artist if it is inconsistent with the binding University Grants Commission Regulations, 2010.
Justice Rai Chattopadhyay set aside the appointment of Chhatrapati Dutta as Principal of the Government College of Art and Craft, Kolkata, issuing a writ of quo warranto declaring that Dutta had no lawful authority to continue in the post.
Case: *State of West Bengal v. Lal Singh Oraon*, D.R. 01 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 447
The Calcutta High Court has commuted the death sentence awarded to a man convicted of murdering his wife and 18-month-old daughter to life imprisonment, holding that the circumstances of the crime did not justify classifying it as one of the “rarest of rare” cases warranting capital punishment.
A Division Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar and Justice Smita Das De upheld Lal Singh Oraon's conviction but took into account his socio-economic circumstances, alcohol dependence, satisfactory conduct in custody and prospects of reformation and rehabilitation while commuting the death sentence.
Case: Tanushree Sarkar @ Putul Vs. The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 448
The Calcutta High Court has reduced the prison sentence of a Bangladeshi woman convicted under Section 14A(b) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, to the period already undergone and directed that she be released forthwith and repatriated to Bangladesh in accordance with law.
Justice Jay Sengupta passed the order in an appeal filed by Tanushree Sarkar alias Putul, who had been sentenced to three years of imprisonment and a fine of ₹6,000. The Court noted that she had already undergone approximately one-and-a-half years of imprisonment and that no purpose would be served by keeping her in custody for longer.
Case: Malay Ghosh and Anr. v. State of West Bengal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 449
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the conviction and life sentences imposed on a couple for murdering a six-and-a-half-year-old girl and concealing her body inside a bag kept under their cot in 2011, holding that the chain of circumstantial evidence established their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
A Division Bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Anuj Singh dismissed the criminal appeal filed by Malay Ghosh and his wife Priya Ghosh, affirming their conviction for murder and causing disappearance of evidence with common intention.
Calcutta High Court Stays Order Allowing CPIM Book Stall During Durga Puja
Case: State of WB v CPIM
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 450
The Calcutta High Court has stayed a Single Judge's order directing the police to protect the Communist Party of India (Marxist) from obstruction while setting up a book stall near its party office in Bongaon during Durga Puja, observing that the party had not sought permission from the competent authority to erect the stall.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ravindra Vithalrao Ghuge and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi passed the interim order on October 16 while hearing an appeal filed by the West Bengal government. The Bench noted that the CPI(M) had informed the Public Works (Roads) Directorate about the proposed stall but had not specifically sought permission for its erection.
Case: Md. Ohidul Islam Vs. The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 451
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the conviction of a man for possessing fake Indian currency notes worth ₹94,000, but reduced his three-and-a-half-year prison sentence to the period already undergone, noting that he had served three years, five months and 17 days.
Justice Jay Sengupta directed the appellant, Md. Ohidul Islam, to be released from custody upon payment of the fine imposed by the trial court, if not already paid, and completion of the necessary formalities. The Court observed that an appeal already admitted could not simply be disposed of as not pressed and had to be decided on merits.
Case: Oishe Biswas Vs. The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 452
The Calcutta High Court has directed that a Bangladeshi woman convicted under the Foreigners Act shall not be deported to Bangladesh until her application for Indian citizenship under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, is decided.
Justice Jay Sengupta passed the direction while dismissing the woman's appeal against her conviction as not maintainable, noting that an appeal against an order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaon, ought to have been filed before the concerned Sessions Court. The Court directed that she be released after completing her sentence and accommodated at an appropriate holding centre while her citizenship application remained pending.
Case: Md. Rafikul Islam & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citationn: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 453
The Calcutta High Court observed that the materials on record did not disclose any attempt to convert a woman to Islam in a case described by the parties as one of “love jihad”, refusing to quash criminal proceedings against a police constable and his family members over allegations of cheating, impersonation, assault and sexual intercourse without consent.
Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta declined relief to the accused, observing that the expression “love jihad” was not defined under any law. The proceedings concerned allegations arising from the relationship and marriage-related disputes between the parties.
Case Title: Sudama Mahato @ Sudhama Mahato & Anr. v. Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 454
The Calcutta High Court has awarded ₹8 lakh in compensation in a case involving a passenger's fatal fall from an overcrowded local train, despite the absence of a railway ticket.
The complete opening paragraph and further details were not available in the supplied listing.
Case: Arup Kumar Sur Vs. Anandamoyee Sur
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 455
The Calcutta High Court has upheld a divorce decree granted to a woman on the ground of cruelty, observing that the husband's indifference towards his wife and son, coupled with their separation for over 14 years, demonstrated the deterioration of their marital relationship to an extent that they could not live together.
A Division Bench of Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Partha Pratim Roy held that although irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not an independent ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a bitter and acrimonious marital relationship may itself amount to cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act.
Case: CPIM v State of WB
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 456
The Calcutta High Court directed the police to ensure that members of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) could erect and operate their book stall during Durga Puja without obstruction, observing that the dissemination of different political ideologies was essential for a fruitful, deep-rooted and mature democracy.
Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya directed the Superintendent of Police, Bongaon Police District, and the Inspector-in-Charge of Bongaon Police Station to maintain peace and public order and deploy police personnel to prevent anyone from disturbing the party members from operating the stall within 100 metres of the proposed location.
Case: SRI MANOJ KUMAR AGARWALA Vs. SRI OMPRAKASH BRAJABASI & ANOTHER.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 457
The Calcutta High Court has held that a plaintiff seeking specific performance of a contract must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his contractual obligations, and a Power of Attorney holder cannot substitute the plaintiff's testimony on matters within the latter's personal knowledge.
A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur and Justice Atarup Banerjee made the observation while dismissing an appeal challenging a trial court's refusal to grant specific performance of an agreement for sale of a property in Bankura. The Bench held that the evidence of the plaintiff's Power of Attorney holder was insufficient to establish the plaintiff's continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract